• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anddenex reacted to classylady in Why?   
    D&C 132:39 has this to say about King David:  "David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."


    From the April 1971 Ensign, Milton R. Hunter had this to say: "David, whom the Lord loved and who is regarded by many people as Israel’s greatest king, spent the latter part of his life in brokenhearted sorrow over his sin against Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba. His deep feelings were expressed in one of the most pitiful prayers in the holy scriptures:

    “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: …

    “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

    “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.” (Ps. 51:1–3.)

    Having an understanding of the plan of salvation and a thorough knowledge of the seriousness of the gross sins of adultery and murder which he had committed, King David in anguish cried out unto the Lord: “… thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” (Ps. 16:10.)

    "More than two thousand years after King David’s death and only 127 years ago, Jesus Christ spoke from heaven and informed us that because of David’s sin against him in the case of Uriah and his wife, David “hath fallen from his exaltation” and his wives have been given to another. (D&C 132:39.)"


    From the Old Testament Student Manual: "The price of David’s sin of murder and adultery was high. He spent the rest of his life regretting it. In one psalm he expressed his mental torment and pleaded for forgiveness.

    “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. …

    “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.” (Psalm 51:1–3, 10–11.)

    Eventually, David received the assurance that his soul would be “delivered … from the lowest hell” (Psalm 86:12–13). But this assurance could not restore the blessings he had lost. They were gone forever (see D&C 132:39)."


    From Ask Gramps: " We know from the Book of Mormon, that our Heavenly Father is not able to allow his mercy to rob justice and its demands.

    King David was taught, and was a child of the Lord’s covenant people. When King David purposely sent Uriah to the front lines, he knew Uriah would die. King David also knew from his youth that murder was against the 10 commandments.

    Yet, we find another example in the Book of Mormon where some Lamanites, blood thirsty and murderers of the Nephites took an oath, a covenant, with God in hopes that they would find forgiveness from their blood stained swords.

    There is a difference between the Lamanites and King David. The Lamanites from their infancy were taught to hate and kill the Nephites. King David however was taught not to murder at all, unless he is defending himself as in times of war.

    The atonement of Jesus Christ is not permission or allowance of any sin, but an opportunity to be forgiven. The atonement doesn’t take away the consequences of certain decisions. Thus, according to the knowledge King David had, he has found himself in a position where his sin is not covered by the atonement to allow him entrance for exaltation."

  2. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Urstadt in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    Why not?  Our prophetic leaders aren't afraid to quote Plato.  If Plato said something good, then this good is from God, no matter how you want to slice it.
    "Fasting is also one of the finest ways of developing our own discipline and self-control. Plato said, “The first and the best victory is to conquer self; to be conquered by self is, of all things, the most shameful and vile.” (Laws, Book I, section 626E.)"  From L. Tom Perry, October 1986 -- emphasis added.
    The quote about self-control is fully gospel centered.  We are constantly taught to master oneself.  
    "Indeed, as the First Presidency stated in 1978, we believe that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”25 Thus, we have respect for the sincere religious beliefs of others and appreciate others extending the same courtesy and respect for the tenets we hold dear." (James E Faust, April 2006, The Restoration of All Things, emphasis added)
    There is a time and place for all things good.  Whether this be with friends discussing philosophy, religion, faith, repentance, etc...  
    When you are referring to "sit in council" of course discussing the philosophies of men isn't a topic of discussion in these meetings.  This website, forum, isn't a bishopric meeting, a young men presidency meeting, PEC, or Ward Council.  There would be no need to discuss these concepts.  To share a quote, in like manner as our leaders have from Plato, or any other person God inspired by his light and knowledge with wisdom even in these meetings has a place.  If Apostles can mention Plato, give a quote that he spoke in God's light, then there isn't any reason for us to be afraid to share a good quote, which benefits the discussion.
    I quite enjoyed the communication between 2ndRateMind and Urstadt, which wasn't taking away from the gospel of Jesus Chris, in the least.
  3. Like
    Anddenex reacted to MikeyBlueEyes in being drawn to LDS ?   
    Hi Everyone
    For a long time years back,I was very against the Lds Church,sadly without much knowledge to base those Convictions. I love The Lord Jesus he is the. Messiah,King Of Kings and Lord of. Lords and the one who Gave his Life for me. I also am developing a Love for the Lds Church. Who could not when you spend time watching the a Conferences,the teaching and programming on Byu Tv or listening to the Mormon Channel.Reading the Book of Mormon,every thing points to people loving Jesus Christ.So. I'm thankful for this Forum to be able to make new friends.
  4. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Dodie in being drawn to LDS ?   
    Yes!  I could have written your post!  I was drawn to the church as a young child.  As I became older that feeling never went away.  Circumstances got in the way, and I was baptized into another church when I was 20.  I was glad I did it, but I never felt completed.  It was due to peer pressure as you mentioned.  Every time I drove past a meeting house, I would pause and think.  I actually would go out of my way just to drive past.  I so wanted to join but it was a challenge due to the people in my life.  
    When I was in my mid 20s I read the Book of Mormon.  My current church began having classes that focused on witnessing to Mormon missionaries who come to your door.  I would question their reasoning as to why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was wrong.  They never gave complete answers.  The lessons and materials (including radio programs) were full of misconceptions and falsehoods.  The more I tried to prove or be proven that the Church was wrong, the more I found it to be true.  So many things bad happened at the churches that I, too, stopped attending.
    Time passed, and I moved to the Midwest (I really felt Heavenly Father's hand in that move).  To make a very long story short, I did everything to prepare to join - having read and study for 30 years.  I gave up coffee and contacted the missionaries to tell them that I was ready.  In June I was baptized.  I'm 50.
    It isn't too late.  I cannot tell you how much of a blessing it is.  I feel as if I am truly home.  I know now why the other churches never felt right.  After my baptism I know why the first one felt incomplete.  It has been an amazing experience.  Each day I see the Lord working.  Just this week there has been so much that takes my breath away.
    You won't be the only one not surrounded by family.  Many attend without spouses or children.  Some are single.  There is a wide variety.  Certainly there are a lot of families; however, they are all so welcoming that you will make many great friends and feel a part of the family.  Personally, my husband does not attend.  Only myself and two of my children are members.  A couple of my children are investigators.  One has not attended other than baptisms and picnics.  Before at my other churches, I felt awkward and almost ashamed to go to church alone.  I have not felt that way at all.
    I do hope that you consider. I feel as if our circumstances leading up to this point are so similar.  Remember that repenting isn't a punishment, it is a precious gift.  All you have to do is ask.  The Lord will forgive.  Work on growing and moving away from the areas in which you sin.  We all have to repent, and we all work on it daily to grow and become stronger in those areas.  You can do it.  
    I believe that Heavenly Father loves you so much that He has been with you all this time guiding you toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  I know this is true because He had been guiding me.   It feels so wonderful to finally reach the destination that He intended for me to go. It is such a blessing.  I'm really excited for you.  Wow.  I'm so happy that you posted.  
    To add to the similarities, prior to moving I retired as a principal and director of a private school.  
  5. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Leah in being drawn to LDS ?   
    I was baptized three years ago, in my early 50s. It's definitely not too late.
    I don't have family in the church. My only child is grown and not interested.
    It can be difficult at times, being an "older" single person in such a family-oriented church. From conversations I have had, the men have an easier time of it. It's worth the struggle,though.
  6. Like
    Anddenex reacted to 2ndRateMind in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    Dear spamlds
    One of the things I find most commendable about the LDS faith is your obvious sense of community, as evidenced by your practical actions. But practical actions need to be directed accurately, in order to be most effective. One of the ways we can ensure this is to reflect on our philosophies, and discover how rigorous, how coherent, how comprehensive, how consistent, they are.
    And, one of the things that distinguishes humans from lower orders of animal is the possession of a recursive consciousness, the capacity to think about our thinking, and assess it's quality. It would be a shame, I think, if we ignored this God given ability in favour of a headlong rush to do good things when a little meditation might improve us, and hence our impact on the world, to a great extent.
    Then again, through the medium of the question I put in the OP, I have learned many fascinating things about your faith, and I would not have known them had I not put the query to you. It was not, in this sense, and for me at least, at all a vain enquiry. I hope, therefore, you will humour me should I ask any more questions; they are not meant to trip anyone up, just put in the spirit of a genuine desire to understand.
    Some wag once said 'philosophy is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned'. It would be good, I think, if we merged the two, and came up with a philosophy of religion that involves answers that may be questioned, for surely that is the way, individually and collectively, to develop our religious understandings and begin to converge on God's truth.
    Best wishes, 2RM.
  7. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    The war in heaven, at least to me, gives evidence to opposition -- otherwise how then did Lucifer rebel?  He was in the presence of God, God definitely was within the realm of a Celestial type kingdom.
    Celestial kingdom is not the absence of evil, more the idea that evil is not given any heed.  When the Savior was tempted he remained pure because he did not give wrong any attention.
    The same organization will exist in the eternal realms and wrong will always have its place; however I agree with the concluding statement from JAG, the righteousness of the people determined evil being bound.
  8. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Seminarysnoozer in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    I am a little confused, are you suggesting that if we think upon philosophical questions then we must not be doers of the word?
    Is a person able to be a doer of the word while pondering other questions, even philosophical ones?
    I assume we are all subject to our personal opinions of what is vain and what is not.  As a bishopric member, although this doesn't make me anymore special than any of my brothers and sisters -- I don't have any issue with pondering philosophical questions while magnifying my calling, serving the youth as we go to the temple 3 times a month, they are invited to my home for duty to God, they help index and are now even finding temple names for our temple visits.
    We serve in many other ways...yet, I agree, if we forget the basic principles of the gospel then we have missed the point. 
  9. Like
    Anddenex reacted to estradling75 in The World and its Creation   
    You just did the equivalent of a creationist saying... "I can prove the existence of a creator...  Because well someone had to create us..."
    That is simply not going to work in this kind of discussion
  10. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Urstadt in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    Thank you, everyone. I agree. Exercising agency in one direction does not equate to no agency. I love my wife and so I would never do anything unfaithful to her. It doesn't mean I have less or no agency, I've already exercised my agency and am sticking to my decision. It would be the same in the Celestial Kingdom. I have already exercised my agency here on earth, after careful deliberation, to Follow God. Once I'm in the Celestial Kingdom (provided I have lived worthily enough) I am just sticking to my decision. I would only ever exercise my agency to disobey God if He chose evil.
    P.S., Thank you to the mod/admin who cleaned up my accidental duplicate thread.
  11. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Urstadt in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    The war in heaven, at least to me, gives evidence to opposition -- otherwise how then did Lucifer rebel?  He was in the presence of God, God definitely was within the realm of a Celestial type kingdom.
    Celestial kingdom is not the absence of evil, more the idea that evil is not given any heed.  When the Savior was tempted he remained pure because he did not give wrong any attention.
    The same organization will exist in the eternal realms and wrong will always have its place; however I agree with the concluding statement from JAG, the righteousness of the people determined evil being bound.
  12. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    This seems to touch on some other recent discussions we've had here; because the conundrum you posit for people who have attained the celestial kingdom is equally true for God Himself--if He can do no wrong, does He truly have agency?  And for that matter, can He truly be omnipotent?
    Seems to me that "the wrong" doesn't exist in the Celestial Kingdom, not because it's not theoretically possible; but because the Plan of Salvation and Atonement provide a perfect training process that lead exalted beings to a point where they will have completely, voluntarily, and eternally chosen to shun the wrong.  As with the Father (in my opinion), so with the children.
    What's that saying about how, during the Millennium, Satan will be bound and have no power simply because of the righteousness of the people?
  13. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in The World and its Creation   
    Perhaps you'd like to discuss that with a couple of friends of mine.
    I think you'd like them.  They're both named "Elder".
  14. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Seminarysnoozer in The World and its Creation   
    Thanks, I completely agree with your quotes and statements here.
    I guess I am trying to explain to those reading this that the term "man" and the use of the word "flesh" of man refers only to beings that are the offspring of God.   I also believe that Adam and Eve are the first of our race as you have quoted but that does not preclude the preparation for mortality including creations that are human-like but not man.
    I would also consider the idea that "our race" really is not the current body we have.  Our current body is a fallen one which is in the image of God but had to be transformed from the Garden of Eden version that Adam and Eve first received.  Our race is the type that lives forever.  Our current body could not fit that description any more than one could say that an ape is like a human.  Our bodies (not spirit) have more in common with an ape right now with this current fallen body than we do with a being that lives forever.  And that is why I think it is easy to forget who we really are and people start to accept their fallen state as self.  Part of our Earthly test is to avoid spiritually internalizing carnal traits, to avoid calling the physical carnal body, self.   Of course, if one believes that we did not fall that far from the paradisical state to our current state then one would believe there hardly is any difference.  But if we did not fall that far, then Christ' atoning act is no big deal.  The magnitude of the Fall is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Atonement.  To me, those were big events. If those were big events then our current physical body is far from being like "our race".
    To become "our race" a humanoid body would have to have been first created as a perfect, paradisiacal body in surroundings that were perfect and then fall from that state.  Obviously, that does not describe the process of evolution, it is more lke the opposite direction, a down grade. The down grade or temporary state will be reversed and then we will go back to being "our race".   Human pride centers around the idea that we are upgraded versions of previous forms and that is the evil of the theories of evolution.  Whereas, humility comes from realizing that we are in a fallen state from the original creation, fallen so far that we can't get out of the pit without help, we couldn't naturally get back to that state. Satan loves to try to teach people that they don't need God or His ways to be like God, that they can somehow naturally get there on their own.
  15. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from SpiritDragon in The World and its Creation   
    Science is only good as according to the evidence and knowledge of the time.  Science hasn't disproven the flood, only the idea of what they understand the flood to be according to their limited knowledge and limited resources.
    If you can provide me any evidence regarding macro evolution I would be welcomed to it.  There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish.  There isn't any evidence of an ape becoming anything but an ape.  There isn't any evidence of a human becoming (the change of alleles) anything but a human.
    What evidence, common or empirical, is science able to provide regarding this? We have plenty of bacteria but all bacteria reproduce more bacteria.  What single celled organism do we have for evidence of becoming anything but a single celled organism when it reproduces?  
    Edit: The only answer to this I receive, "It takes millions of years for a macro evolution to occur".  Isn't evidence then, but a supposition according to their understanding of what exists.
  16. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Str8Shooter in The World and its Creation   
    The scripture I am referring to is Moses 3:7, "And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word." (emphasis added)
    The opening statement in italics below the picture of the First Presidency declares this, "the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."  This article expresses the Church's doctrinal position regarding the matter of evolution.  
    The Origin of Man, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father."
    "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."
    It is clear from our doctrinal position as given by our First Presidency in 1909 that Adam was first man, first flesh, and that Adam and Eve existed and are literal offspring of God/deity.  Adam will again return to claim his right as the patriarch of the human race, the offspring of God.
    Regarding the term "flesh", "Flesh has several meanings: (1) the soft tissue that makes up the bodies of mankind, animals, fowls, or fish; (2) mortality; or (3) the physical or carnal nature of man."
    In reference to these scriptural understandings of definition of it appears we can safely remove definition #3 because at this time they were not devilish nor were they carnal.  
    Yet, the understanding you provide gives further cogitation regarding "flesh" meaning "living soul."  
  17. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Palerider in The World and its Creation   
    You believe in fairies but have a hard time with the flood?
  18. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from 2ndRateMind in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    I have wondered about this question to discover some sort of truth.  In the beginning I looked at this in relatin to God being subject; yet, not sure how accurate this is anymore. Not to say it isn't, just other thoughts have entered my heart and mind when thinking upon this conept of worship good or God.
    Is God subject to good?  In scripture we are informed God IS love.  Love.  We are informed all things which are good come from God and God IS good. Good.
    Are we able to separate such as to form of worship when God and good, God and love are one body?  When we worship God we worship all that is good, because God is good. Good.  When a person worships God we worship love because God is love. Love.
    When we think of good we will find God.  When we think of God we will find good.  When we think of love we will find God and when we think of God we will find love.  All roads lead to the same intelligence.
  19. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Urstadt in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    Morals do exist objectively, the same as wave lengths do. But those morals only become sensible to us in the context of our relationships, the same as those wave lengths only become sensible to us when our eyes perceive them as colors.Imagine if Plato had posed this dilemma with God and colors instead of God and morals. Charles Taylor's book The Sources of the Self: Making of Modern Identity, and John Macmurray's book Persons in Relation speak to these issues very coherently and convincingly. Consider taking a gander at these sources.
  20. Like
    Anddenex reacted to The Folk Prophet in Jerusalem Temple   
    Who is going to build the temple?
    Joseph Fielding Smith:
    "Neither will the Lord call upon those who are cut off from his people to accomplish his holy work. The temple will not be built by those who say that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, and who have failed to accept the fullness of the word of the Lord as it came through him. No people will be commanded and directed by revelation from the Lord to build his temple, when they know nothing of temple building and the ordinances performed in temples. The Latter-day Saints may be assured that when the time comes for the building of the house of the Lord, he will call upon his people who have remained true and have been faithful in the purposes of the Lord in bringing to pass the salvation of the living and of the dead. We may be doubly sure that the Lord did not send Elijah the prophet with the keys of the sealing ordinances which are performed, in the temple, so that the earth will not be smitten with a curse when the Redeemer shall come, and then call into favor a people who rejected the coming of Elijah and all the authority and keys he was sent to bestow, and ask them to build the temple of the Lord."
    and Bruce R. McConkie -
    "By what power and under whose authorization shall the work be done? There is only one place under the whole heavens where the keys of temple building are found. There is only one people who know how to build temples and what to do in them when they are completed. That people is the Latter-day Saints. The temple in Jerusalem will not be built by Jews who have assembled there for political purposes as at present. It will not be built by a people who know nothing whatever about the sealing ordinances and their application to the living and the dead. It will not be built by those who know nothing about Christ and his laws and the mysteries reserved for the saints. But it will be built by Jews who have come unto Christ, who once again are in the true fold of their ancient Shepherd, and who have learned anew about temples because they know that Elijah did come, not to sit in a vacant chair at some Jewish feast of the Passover, but to the Kirkland Temple on April 3, 1836, to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The temple in Jerusalem will be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “They that are far off,” [Zech. 6:12-15.] they that come from an American Zion, they who have a temple in Salt Lake City will come to Jerusalem to build there another holy house in the Jerusalem portion of “the mountains of the Lord’s house." He also said: "A house of the Lord—the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the Jews—shall rise again in Jerusalem, . . . because the remnants of Judah shall accept their King, believe his gospel, and walk in his paths. A holy temple, the house of the Lord—a sacred sanctuary with its Holy of Holies where the Divine Presence, the Shekinah of old, shall once more be manifest to Israel—shall be built in Old Jerusalem. It shall be built by the Jews: Jews who believe in Christ; Jews who are converted to the truth; Jews who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Jews who hold again the powers andpriesthoods possessed by their ancestors. The keys and powers whereby temples are built vest in the President of the Church, the presiding high priest among the Lord’s latter-day people. These keys first conferred by angelic ministrants—Moses, Elijah, Elias, and others—upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery have come down in direct succession and rest upon and are exercised by the prophet of God on earth, the one who, as it were, wears the mantle of Joseph Smith. And so it is that the Jews shall build their temple, and the Jews who do it will be Mormons; they will be Jews who are the converted and baptized saints of the latter days." As to where, it can only really be speculated, as the traditional location of the temple is simple that -- tradition -- and we don't know for sure. But it can be reasonably expected that "the" temple in Jerusalem will be on the same holy site as the original temple was (presuming that the traditional location of The Dome of the Rock is where that is). However, I see no reason why that limits the potential for other temples in Jerusalem as well. Just as we now have a temple in Kansas City, it doesn't mean the New Jerusalem temple no longer needs to be built on the dedicated site.
  21. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Traveler in Doubt   
    I think there are two kinds of doubt.
    1. When we run across something that does not conform with our proven paradigm of reality.
    2. When we run across something that does not conform to what we want to be reality.
    Obviously one kind of doubt leads to better understanding of reality and the other leads to deliberate misunderstandings of reality.
  22. Like
    Anddenex reacted to spamlds in Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'   
    Farewell Iguy2314.  I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries.  You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis.  We urge people to ask of God.  There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6.
    "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
    But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."
    When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God.
    I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach.  His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth.  The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is.  Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception.
    Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him.  He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it.  Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to.  There's no way to know.  The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right.  Then he read James 1:5-6.
    In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this:  If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google.  Don't ask Yahoo Answers.  Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there.  Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart.  The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means.  You won't get the answer you seek from them.  Instead, ask of God.
    Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive.  The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes.  Have faith.  Asking doesn't come without a price.  Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you.  Clarity comes through personal revelation from God.
    For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself.  Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God?  We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true.  We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.
  23. Like
    Anddenex reacted to prisonchaplain in Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'   
    We're very sensitive to the charge that even our Tri-une God is not really one.  I referenced earlier that Jews (and Muslims) reject the Trinity as a monotheistic construct.  Since our faith is rooted in Judaism the criticism hurts.  We know we believe in one God, that the three are one, yet, as you say, it's hard to explain.  Yet, no Christian I know of would ever entertain belief in an actual tri-theism.  So, we ignore the criticism, feeling relatively safe in our long history, our thoughtful theology, and our personal experience of worshipping one God--be that God Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    Along come the LDS, saying that the persons are actual beings, totally separated.  Only their will unites them.  Our insecure monotheism goes into defense mode, and we run away, uttering mean words like "heresy," and insisting that's not us.
    Poets have written poetically of the Trinity.  Song writers have composed beautiful songs.  Catholics often declare the Trinity a Mystery that is wondrous.  Yet, when the common Christian encounters a Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, or an LDS missionary--all who question our Trinity, we have a hard time explaining what we know in a way that is simple, practical, and "reasonable."  Yet we treasure our belief.  it is sacred, because it concerns who God is.
    The difference may seem slight to many LDS (and some trinitarians), but we already feel close to the monotheistic border.  Your doctrine threatens to pull us to a place that we fear is no longer a "one God" worship.  I'm not defining your teaching, but expressing our perceptions.
  24. Like
    Anddenex reacted to estradling75 in The Alma 32 Experiment   
    Simple fact is.. they don't...  People generally need to have some kind of spark or reason to change.  That is why the LDS missionaries begin with the Book of Mormon.  They ask people to Read it.  Why because reading it has the power to open peoples minds to the possibility that there is more out there.  Many don't read, more reject it out of hand because of what they already believe.
    The Lord said his sheep will hear is voice.  Its the servants job to give everyone a chance to hear
  25. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in The Alma 32 Experiment   
    Open-mindedness is "scientific", but nihilism is not. For my part, I distinctly remember that in high school chem lab I was graded on my ability to replicate an experiment such that I got identical results to those already demonstrated by the teacher.
    I see and agree with your general point, but as for your specific example: a core element of RLDS teaching is that Brigham Young (and his successors) led the body of the Church into apostasy. Ditto for the FLDS as pertains to the Church after the Joseph F. Smith administration. Once you get a revelation, and you understand it as such--it's one thing to go out and seek further light and knowledge; but deliberately requesting a revelation that contradicts an earlier revelation is potentially problematic.